Peter Cairns

LtCol West, Are you honestly telling me they pilot landed a cobra in a combat zone to apologies..... hell the guy should have been court marshalled for that, Ok he made a mistake which could or could not be an offense, but to just decide to abandon your support mission to pay your respects is dereliction of duty. It just sounds crazy to me. Peter.

As I see it it's a bit like the 105mm v TOW debate. The Tow is more effective, but costs 100 times as much per round. MetalStorms logic is that if you can use multibarrel rapid shot technology to fire 100 rounds that cost a 1/1000th of a large guided round and have the same or better effect, then you get a times 10 increase in cost effectiveness. As they seem to be looking a point defence against aircraft, helicopters and missiles, it should be seen more as a replacement for a HAWK, or Standard or even a Phalanx, than as an alternative to a MGS or bushmaster. Peter.

From what i know of other metal storm projects they use a system of multiple rounds in the same barrel that are fired electronically. This in theory allows multi-barrelled weapons that have rates of fire that "theoretically" run in to the millions of RPM. sounds crazy but if you have ten barrels and ten rounds in each fired at intervals of 1/100th of a second then you can fire at 1,000 rps, or 60,000RPM. Peter.

A good example of localised fog. Peter.

Heres another one, even more fog Peter.

fog more fog There doesn't seem to have been much discusssion of advanced or improved weather in CM:sf or CMx2 in general, so I thought I'd make some suggestions of things worth considering. First fog, not just overall levels, but patchy fog, that can both move and change in intensity throughout a game. Also there is a fog in hollows or half way up hills so that parts of the map are clear but lower or higher parts in mist. equally general fog can roll in froma direction, or burn off as the sun gets up. Rain, what about it changing in intensity and or direction during a scenario. Certainly in the tropics in the space of less than 30 minutes (a CM scenario time scale) it can be dry then be a down pour and finally leave a low mist rising from the ground. Snow, well this can like rain change in intensity, and direction which can have a real effect from the point of view of shelter. and even if it didn't effect combat I'd love to see that effect where the wind blows snow off the surface around peoples ankles. Thought people. Peter.

I don't see why it shouldn't be available. It might not be in any of the scenarios that come with the game, but i've seen some pretty much blanket coverage from rusian rockets in CMBB. If you've got it available to clear a path for a Stryker Fprce and it's the appropriate thing for the situation then use it. Peter.

John, I am not clear on what you are saying about the difference between the ADS or HPM, are you saying that "Sheriff" operates more as a "field" effecting an area as opposed to a directional beam..... I'd have though if this thing is all but ready for deployment we would know a lot more about it by now, I haven't even seen a picture of it. Peter.

MileyD, Given that we are going down to 8x8 tiles with the ability to place the likes of walls to within 1m, them I think it will allow better representation of these things than the difficulty of placing each individual mins and calculating if an individual foot steps on it. That would seem both a programming nightmare, and a CPU intensive activity. However as we seem to be getting deformable terrain then one possible way through, would be to have "Tank tracks" as a tile option like hedge or wall. This would mean that they could be pre placed on maps as both a graphic, that would look nice, but also a terrain. As terrain, they might depending on weather and or ground conditions, aid cover or improve or impeed movement. They could also negate mines ( you would start the scenario with cleared tracks, through minefields and wires). Equally as a vehicle moved, it could lay down this terrain, changing the map as it went. One effect od this would be to have tanks not just clear mines, but multiple tracked vehicles might make it increasingly difficult for other vehicles as they churned the ground by passing . Although this is one way to proceed, which I think would be easier that what you suggest, I'd urge caution as it might if abused lead to unrealistic and gamey effects. A Steve has warned before BF tries to avoid putting in things that although possible weren't likely as it can both overload and distort the game. Having said that I'd be interested in Steves view if whether treating "Tank Tracks", as terrain, like hedges etc might be the way to go. Peter.

For all this is good news, it is worth looking at it from an Iraqi perspective. How would you feel if a foreign army built a wall around your town and searched everyone going in and out. The claim is that they caught a lot of insurgent leaving, but a lot of people may see this as akin to what happened in Afghanistan, lots of young men of military age being bundled away because, well they were young men of military age. Likewise with the local army units every few blocks, is that security or a occupation, well it depends on your point of view. All in all I think it looks like good progress has been made and they are doing the right things, but I am just adding a bit of caution. The UK built checkpoints, outposts, and barriers and the like in Northern Ireland and had great success with foot patrolling in greatly reducing the IRA activity to virtually nothing. But ask any British soldier what would happen if he went up a catholic street on his own in uniform today, and he's tell you, he'd be dead inside ten minutes. Peter.

I never said it was a good idea, I just asked if anyone knew the current satus of the project and where it was going..... Even if it was ready and deployable I wouldn't use it in Iraq either as I think it would create just the backlash mentioned. But they do seem to be at least considering using it. In addition if it is near deployment as a "Less Lethal" weapon, I can't imagine they haven't at least considered if not tested it at higher power. Peter.

Dirtweasle,The metal would heat up far faster than any plastic or wood, ( I've never put wood in a microwave so I don't know what happens, though it will melt plastic eventually). As to cooking internal organs, things only heat from the inside out in microwaves becuase they are deflected by the sides of the oven and as such more go through the centre of the oven than anywhere else, so that is where the greatest heat effect takes place, as opposed to the corners. A directed beam would heat skin first and only penetrate so far, thats why it would probably have no real effect against armour or buildings. ( though I am not sure to be honest). If it could be made to adversely effect electronics etc, it might be the basis for a defensive system for the likes of tanks. Peter.

Gasmask. New scientist report from sept 22nd 2005 on the "sheriff" microwave weapon, which they put at iraq 2006. New Scientist Sept 2005. Peter.

Came across a report in the UK press from 2004, (Telegraph sept 19th) stating that by 2005 the US might be deploying "microwave" weapons for crowd control in Iraq. I know these have been tested on helicopters, but are they now on ground vehicles and have they been used, and if so might they appear in CM:SF. I know so far that they have been limited to "non lethal" versions, but at what point can we expect to see ones with more power. One of the issues with them, is that they can kill people with pace makers etc, and can apparently affect contact lenses. They also heat up metal, with claims of injuries to people wearing glasses or watches, so what might they do to someone holding an AK, or indeed the ammunition in it. Also does anyone know the what if any penetration they have or effect on vehicle electronics etc. Peter.

If part of the rational of the US in CM:SF is to minimise friendly casualties then the obvious way to use the MGS will be to keep them back until the infantry come up against a stubborn enemy in a hardened position, and then just role the MGS in to sight and blow them away. Obvious syrian tactic to avoid this is to have there hardened positions set back in the second or third line of buildings so they can fall abck in to them when the MGS appears, so that they can offer light resistance to advancing infantry while avoiding taking hits from a 105mm. Secondary tactic is to have ATGM's hide and hold there fire until the MGS is brought up to do it's job and then take them out, although that needs planning skill and a bit of luck. On a seperate subject I came across the use of modified 70mm Hydra rockets for laying down smoke, for infantry, is this something that will be in the game for the Styker or US froces. Peter.

That looks more like ATGM's than SAM's to me. My prefered option ( though as far as I know no one has tried it) is a telescopic mount, with a horizontal bar about 2mtrs long (it might project beyod the sides when lowered), that can be turned through 180.. On each end there would be a "shoe" similiar ( actually ideally the same), as a hardpoint on an Apache. The vehicle could then be fitted witha wide range of weapons that "plug and play" as required. Gun pods, ATGM's Sams, Grenade launchers, miniguns, rockets ( i onc saw a version of the LAV with a tutrret mounting 70mm rockets for close support/artillery as an alternative to a morter carrier) in effect anything you can get for helicopter. To reload or repair, you would turn it through 90" and then it would be above the rear roof hatch. Ideally if you then lowered it you could drop the weapon actually in to th e troop compartment, although that might not be practical if it had a pod with a barrell. Another thing about a bar is that if it had an optical range finder it could accurately target at distance passively without using a laser. As laser detectors are becoming so common, using designators and range finders is increasingly a good way to give away your position. Peter.

A general point on which is best for supporting infantry the 105mm or a TOW. Cost of a 105mm round, between $150 and $250 US. Cost of a TOW 11 round betweem £35,000 and £50,000 US. That's roughly speaking you can load an entire companies MGS section with 15 rounds plus extra ammo in the back for the cost of a single missile. Peter.

Didn't Canada have a version of the LAV with the turret of a UK Scorpion with a 75mm gun. Come to think of iyt old UK Saladin and Saracen armoured cars had that option. As to the low pressure 75mm gun Steve talked about, well aren't there versions od the soviet BTR with a BMP tirret. As to the MGS, I think the recoil etc isn't a factor when it's pointing forwards and if you turn sideways to the target with that little armour you are asking for trouble. If it's job is to open up breaches and take out bunkers in support of infantry ( with a single round, rather than a few dozen like the 25mm), then you'll go in head first. I go back to my previous point, it isn't a tank so don't try and use it like one, its an infantry support weapon on wheels. If you want to fight from or in vehicles in a manouvering war in a built up area,( well actually your nuts if you try that),then use a Bradley. There is nothing wrong with the Stryker or indeed MGS if you use them as intended, but if you try to use them as IFV's or tanks, you'll suffer. What most of the people attacking Stryker are doing is criticising them for not being something they were never supposed to be. Look at Somalia, Stryker was pretty much the ideal vehicle for there and the US had to use Hummers, It wasn't ideal for GW1, so apart from the Marines, it took second place to Bradleys. If you have a bag full of clubs use the best one for the shot, people here seem to be criticising a putter because it's not that good in a bunker or with a tie shot, Like I said earlier it fills a niche. Peter.

Steve, I am pretty much with you on this. I think a lot of the debate so far on the Stryker v M-113 misses the point as it seems to focus on comparing them as combat vehicles as opposed to means of transport. As a way of moving infantry quickly with a small logistical tail then the Stryker has the M-113 beat. As a lot of the cost differential comes from C£ and networking that you would need to add to the M-113 anyway then I don't think it's a factor. As I said elsewhere, if in a place like Afghanistan you need to routinely move infantry and there equipment rapidly from place to place, then a wheeled APC gives them the best combination, the speed of a truck with the protection of an APC. A truck is too vulnerable, a tracked APC to slow and unreliable over distance. Despite it's limitations and the Russians in Afghanistan, it's no surprise that the Soviet BTR series has been the workhorse of third world armiesand operations, for decades, and I would suggest that in that sense the US is catching up, in that it now has a vehicle that fills that "Niche". Fast, Reliable, Armoured, Small Logistical Footprint, Low Reliance of Engineering Support, Easily maintained in the field, Cheaper than a tracked alternative. Peter.

civdiv, If you look at Russian SP guns, they all fire a variety of anti tank rounds,( and anti personnel flechettes) that doesn't mean that they are substitute tanks, but the Russians took the smart choice of giving there long range artillery the secondary capacity to directly engage armour or infantry in an emergency. Is the MGS designed to engage enemy armour.... No Does enemy armour know that and won't do it......No Is it therefore a good idea to give it some AT rounds......YES. As to M102,s or M-8's etc, thats another two types of vehicles with yet another bundle of spare parts to add to the logistics train. Peter.

Scottish National Party. Do a search of this forum and you'll find a real cracker of an arguement over an independant Scotland a few months back. But please don't start it up again it was bad enough the last time. Peter.

M1A1TankCommander, Take care, keep your head down, and don't do anything stupid, although as you joined up in the first place maybe it's a bit late for that. Seriously, good luck mate. Peter.

A couple of points to add to this. Firstly on road infrastructure in the third world. If you are out to win the hearts and minds of the of the locals use wheels, as tracked vehicles tend to churn up the road surface so that when it rains you get a sea of mud and when its hot clouds of dust. No one has yet mentioned one of the achilles heals of tracked vehicles Fuel consumption. The strker can go 3oo miles on just over 50 gallons thats near 6 mpg. The M-113 does 200 miles on an 80 gallon tank, thats 2.5 mpg, which means that do go the same distance you need 2.4 times as much fuel. True as the M-113 takes more people you could probably move a Battalion with fewer vehicles, but you still need twice the fuel. In addition the Stryker could probably cover it's 300 miles faster than the M-113 could it's 200. As to the off road arguement, In all but a few cases most movement over distance is prior to combat and by road. Sure the M-113 could go further off road in to heavier country, and then when it's 80 gallon tank runs dry the fuel trucks can just run a 15 mile hose out to refuel it. Think about it people whats the point of being able to go where you logistical support can't. In combat fast off road manouvering is for M1A2's and Bradleys, not Strykers and M-113's, there job is to get the infantry there and back out ( the turning circle is abit of a red herring as it really only comes in to play if you've put yourself in the wrong place) I do find it surprising that the US didn't go for an amphibious version, as it reduces dependence on bridging equipment and the like in third world countries etc. I also stated long ago (in the wierd and chaotic Independant Scotland thread) I liked the smaller 6 wheeled amphibious variant, that was more air portable, and potentially could be liked by a Chinook or Marine GJ, ( although only empty without add on armour). Peter.

The Blackwatch, soon to be part of the Royal Scots Infantry Regiment had two battalions of approximately 450 to 550 men, one regular ( the larger) and one TA (reserve volunteer, roughly like the National Guard). The six hundred would be the full regiment in Belize doing jungle warfare training. The extras would be Royal engineers and Logistics regiment plus signals etc. As they are a Scottish rergiment and as a member of the SNP I have bben involved in the campaign to prevent their amalgamation in to a single five battalion regiment, I know quite a few current and former members. Which is why I stick to my original comment...."BULL****". Peter.

Well I hope your all proud of yourselfs, I guy comes on for the first time, and tells you where you've all been going wrong for all these years, and then you go and say that you don't agree with him and make him run away.... Shame on you bullying that little ole Marine... Peter.